GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY

MOOT COURT, 2023

(GROUP- 6)
____________________________________________________
Before
THE SUPREME COURT OF GHINDIA
______________________________________________________
In the matter of
Sarita & Mahima & Ors.

…….PETITIONERS
Versus
Jan Vivah Samiti
……..RESPONDENT
______________________________________________________
Memorial for the Respondent
_____________________________________________________

Submitted to: Mr. Ravideep Submitted by: Paras

Sharma
Badyal Roll no. – 17141886575

Signature of Teacher-…………..
 Signature of Counsel-…………..

PAGE OF CONTENTS

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

 Books used
 Statutes used
 Websites used

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS

5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

8. PRAYER
 TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. AIR All India Reporter

2. Hon’ble Honourable

3. i.e. That is

4. S. Section

5. SC Supreme Court

6. SCC Supreme Court Cases

7. u/s Under Section

8. Vs. Versus

9. HSA Hindu succession act

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS USED

S. No Name of Books

1. The Constitution of India, 1949 Bare Act

2. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Bare Act

3. Hindu Succession Act, 1856 Bare Act

4. Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 Bare Act

5. Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 Bare Act

6. Indian Penal Code, 1860 Bare Act

7. Special Marriage Act, 1954 Bare Act

8. Transgender Family Law by Jennifer L. Levi’s

STATUTES USED:

S. No. Statutes

1. Constitution of India,1949

2. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

3. Hindu Succession Act, 1956

4. Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956

5. Transgender Persons (Protection of rights) Act, 2019

6. Indian Penal Code, 1960

7. Special Marriage Act, 1954

8. International Human Rights Act, 1998

WEBSITES USED:

S. No. Websites

1. https://indiankanoon.org/

2. https://www.scconline.com

3. https://mobile.manupatra.in

4. https://www.blog.ipleaders.in
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Supreme court of Hindus under the Article-133,
clause-(1), sub-clause-(a) of the Constitution of India, 1949.

Constitution of India, 1949:

Article 133:

Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in regard to civil
matters

(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final
order in a civil proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court
certifies under Article 134A

(a) that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance; and

(b) that in the opinion of the High Court the said question needs to be decided by the
Supreme Court

(2) Notwithstanding anything in Article 132, any party appealing to the Supreme Court
under clause (1) may urge as one of the grounds in such appeal that a substantial question of
law as to the interpretation of this Constitution has been wrongly decided.

(3) Notwithstanding anything in this article, no appeal shall, unless Parliament by law
otherwise provides, lie to the Supreme Court from the judgment, decree or final order of one
Judge of a High Court.
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Sarita and Mahima are trans genders. Mahima had undergone sex-reassignment
surgery at theof age of 19. Sarita was born male however she identifies as a woman.
Both are 35 years and work as office assistants in different corners of the city. Sarita
and Mahima live in Mangalore with other trans genders in a remote part and manage
their affairs through meagre salaries and begging.

2. Sarita was abandoned by her parents when she turned 12 and Mahima decided to run
away from home, unable to understand her sexuality and being traumatized by the
constant discrimination she faced by her friends and family due to her effeminate
behaviour and the pressure of conformity to masculine identity. She was stopped
from attending school after 9th standard although she was a bright student excelling in
academics and sports.

3. They both found a safe refuge after encountering Bankuli, a renowned transgender in
Mangalore. She asked them to stay with her and made efforts to provide them jobs
using her contacts. Since that accidental meeting, Sarita and Mahima live with 20
other trans genders in their house called Swarg for the last 10 years.

4. Sarita and Mahima fell in love over the course of time and visit movie halls, parks
and sometimes go on a vacation after saving some money. They do this discreetly
without informing anybody. They had also made plans to live together and raise a
child. Meanwhile, Mahima’s family finds where she is living through some relatives
who had seen Mahima at a vegetable market. Mahima’s family search for her, find
her place and decide to visit her only to be shocked to find her transitioned and the
knowledge about her relationship with Sarita only further angered them. After a
scuffle between Mahima’s friends and family, the family decides to leave but only
after delivering threats towards both Sarita and Mahim.. Shocked by the events, both
Sarita and Mahima become cautious and decide to get married and try to move places
as soon as possible.
5. Sarita’s uncle Vignesh used to visit Sarita’s parents regularly and took a keen interest
on Sarita’s well being. When Sarita was abandoned, she stayed with Vignesh for a
few years and continued to remain in touch after she decided to live by herself. It was
only in October that Sarita told Vignesh of Mahima and their plans to get married and
live together as a couple. Vignesh was surprised at this new development but being a
well wisher, wanted to help her out. He had called her to meet for lunch on the same
day Mahima’s parents visited Sarita.. After hearing about the scuffle, Vignesh went
with Sarita to a police station near his house to seek protection for Saritan and
Mahima in case they were to encounter any danger.

6. Two weeks after the events with Mahima’s family, Sarita and Mahima along with
their friends met at the Devulu temple in Mangiri and in line with Hindu customs got
married. As soon as marriage photos became public, a pro binary gender family
organization called ‘Jan Vivah Samiti’ began to harass and threaten the newlyweds
that they are violating the institution of marriage and trans genders cannot tie the
mangalasutra. ‘Jan Vivah Samiti’ also put out an advertisement in the newspaper
about the sanctity and importance of marriage being diluted and withered away by
marriage between trans genders.

7. They approached the High Court of Mangalore for nullification of marriage. The
reasoning of the court was as follows “while the marriage was done according to
Hindu customs and we cannot nullify marriage on those grounds, the law defines
marriage between a man and a ‘bride’. Even if we include trans genders within the
ambit of ‘bride’, the definition of ‘man’ cannot be changed or contested on these
grounds, we declare the marriage invalid.”

8. While ‘Jan Vivah Samiti’ celebrated the verdict, Sarita and Mahima were aggrieved
and decided to go on appeal. Along with other transgender organizations in the
country, they approached the Supreme Court of Ghindia to recognize their marriage
and extend marital rights.
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE NO.1

Does the definition of marriage under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 mean
only between a ‘man’ and a ‘bride’?

ISSUE NO.2

Does the definition of ‘bride’ under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act
include ‘transgender’?

ISSUE NO.3

Does the scope of marriage between two transgender sex tend to the other
attendant rights such as adoption and maintenance?
 ISSUE NO.4

Whether the appellants are entitled the right to have a family?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. The definition of marriage under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 mean

only between a ‘man’ and a ‘bride’.
It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court of Ghindia that in the given factual matrix the
definition of the term ‘Marriage’ under Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 ‘Marriage’ refers to
solemnization of ties between a ‘man’ and a ‘bride’’. A person who is born as intersex but
recognises herself as a woman should be discussed as “bride” under Section 5 of the said act,
but there is no explanation as to inclusion of transwoman or transgender in the definition
of ‘man’. Hence, the appellants cannot validate the marriage as the definition of ‘man’
cannot be changed or contested. The High court of Vataka expressed the same while
dismissing the matter.

2. The respondents contention of inclusion of trans genders in

definition of bride is arbitrary.
It is humbly submitted that Section 5 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 which talks about the
conditions of a Hindu marriage, refers to “party” as “groom”, and “bride”. The word Bride
as mentioned in Section 5(iii) literally means, “woman who has just married or is going to be
married”, the words ‘Transgender’ finds no place in the Act. Hence, the relief sought by the
appellants cannot be granted unless several laws are altered and therefore, the marriage
between Sarita and Mahima does not have any legal sanction as they do not fall within the
definition of the term ‘bride’ under Section-5 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

3. The scope of marriage between two trans genders does not extend to
other attendant rights such as adoption.
It is to bring before the Hon’ble Supreme court of Ghindia that The HAMA under Sections 7
& 8 recognizes a valid adoption only if it is done by a male or female, and thus, third genders
are out of the scope of application of this Act. Also, by virtue of Sections 4 & 5 of the said
Act, adoptions by virtue of the custom of rete in Trans genders have been
delegitimized, by providing overriding powers to the provisions of the Act over customs.
Hence, no statutory provisions have yet been made recognizing trans genders valid for
adoption.

4. Whether appellants are entitled to any right to have a family?

It is to bring before the Hon’ble Supreme court of Ghindia that it’s undoubtable that the
appellants are not entitled to the Right to have a family especially in association of having or
adopting a child as a Transgender couple. It is to be noted that extending marriage and
family rights to same-sex couples would undercut the conventional purpose of marriage.
Therefore, the appellants should not be granted the right to have a family.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE NO.1: Does the definition of marriage under Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955 mean only between a ‘man’ and a ‘bride’?

1. Irrespective of standpoint of the appellants the definition of marriage under

HMA only includes a man and a bride.

The institution of marriage, which is a legally recognized and legally defined

relationship between two persons, has a great social significance, as it greatly enjoys
rights and obligations, especially those of property, succession, inheritance and
related rights, ultimately from the institution of marriage. Hindu marriage is “a
religious sacrament in which a man and a woman are bound in a permanent
relationship for the physical, social and spiritual need of dharma, procreation and
sexual pleasure.” Section 5 of this Act prescribes the essentials of a Hindu marriage.
As per this section, two Hindus, one of whom can be identified as bride and other the
bridegroom, can solemnize a marriage, unless it is barred by subsection (iii), (iv), and
(v) of the section1. Indian society is basically “a socially recognized union of two
 individuals which is governed either by uncodified personal laws or codified
statutory laws. There is no acceptance of the institution of marriage between two
individuals of the same gender either in personal laws or codified statutory laws.
Hence, whether legal sanction can be accorded to same sex marriages is not an issue
that can be decided by way of judicial adjudication but by the legislature. The
jurisprudence of any nation, be it by way of codified law or otherwise, evolves, based
on societal values, beliefs, cultural history and other factors. Therefore, it is
submitted before the Hon’ble court that the appellants petition does not stand on the
fundamental grounds of a marriage under Hindu Law.

2. Scope and meaning of the words ‘man’ and ‘bride’ under HMA, 1955

As per Section 5 of this Act, only a marriage of a bride and a bridegroom is valid and
recognized. The terms “bride” and “bridegroom” are gendered terms. It necessarily
translates to “woman” and “man” on their wedding day. Thus, it provides no
recognition to marriages for the third gender. It is to be noted that in the leading case
of “Arun kumar vs The Inspector General Of … on 22 April, 2019” the Hon’ble
court stated that, “a person who is born as intersex but recognizes herself as a woman
should be discussed as “bride” under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Thus, directing that the marriage within a male and the transwoman be recorded
under the act, and a transsexual was also a “bride” and the term applied in the Act
would not significantly indicate only to a woman. However, no law regarding the
same has been enacted yet and one cannot rely merely on precedent. Since it is a
normal understanding that the husband is considered to be a male and the wife is
considered to be a female. But in case of LGBT marriage since both the partners are
of the same gender this definition can’t be applied.

Further, If the meaning of the terms husband and wife are not properly interpreted
then it will result in ambiguity with regards to the application of the law. It is
submitted before the Hon’ble court that to be noted that for the marriage to be
solemnized between a ‘Man’ and ‘a women’ or Trans genders or others’ at least one
party to the marriage should be a man. In the present matrix of facts both the
appellants i.e., Sarita and Mahima are transwomen and neither party to the marriage
falls into the category of a ‘man’.

3. Customs as a source of law

Codified Hindu Law has given an important place to the custom and usages and
considered it as a parent of Hindu law. Custom under ‘Hindu Marriage Act 1955’ has
been used in three situations. Firstly, the marriages can be solicited as per the
customary tradition which is followed by the party. Secondly, divorce can be
obtained by parties on the prevailing custom and usages. Thirdly, adoption can be
done as per the customary rules. Section 3 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 defines
custom as a rule which is followed for a long time and has obtained the force of law
among people of the Hindu community. It also stated that custom must be ancient,
 must be reasonable, and it should not be in derogation to the laws of the
country.3Moreover, such a custom must not be immoral, or opposed to public policy,
or expressly forbidden by law. It is pertinent to note that Customs should not be
against the moral values or set of ethical standards that the society follows. Marriage
also is a customary practice in India and can be defined as “a religious sacrament in
which a man and a woman are bound in a permanent relationship for the physical,
social and spiritual need of dharma, procreation and sexual pleasure.” Hence the
fundamental existence of the institution of marriage is based upon our old aged
customs that it is a ritual to be performed between a man and a woman. In
Hurpurshad v. Sheo Dayal the Privy Council observed that “a custom is a rule
which, in a particular family, or a particular caste or community, or in a particular
district, has from long usage obtained the force of law. It must be ancient, certain and
reasonable”. Allowing same-sex marriages will hamper the customary rule of
institution of marriage and will be immoral and against the public policy.

Burden of proof / Onus of proof - The person who is ascertaining the establishment
of the custom which is in derogation to the laws must prove the existence of such
custom and so the burden of proof lies upon such person. Conversely, when a custom
has been proved, the burden of proving its discontinuance lies on the party who
alleges such discontinuance. In the case of Harihar Prasad Singh V. Balmiki Prasad
Singh the supreme court held that the burden of proof lies upon a person who claims
its existence and such a person has to prove that the custom is valid enough to be
established contrary to laws. Hence, the burden of proof lies on the appellants to
disregard the customary laws of marriage and establish why such a custom is
arbitrary and is in violation.

4. Validity of a marriage between two transgender women

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme court that as mentioned a

marriage under the Hindu marriage act,1955 can only be solemnized between a
bridegroom and bride. In the Navtej Singh Johar case, the Supreme Court’s ruling
granted same-sex couples the freedom to lead a dignified private life but allows them
only the ‘basic right to companionship so long as such companionship is consensual,
free from the vice of deceit, force, coercion, and does not result in the violation of
fundamental rights of others. It is pertinent to note that the Decriminalization of
section 377 of the Indian Penal Code does not automatically translate into a
Fundamental Right for same-sex couples to marry. Therefore, the appellant’s plea
here to recognize and validate their same-sex marriage, considering both the parties
to the marriage are transwomen does not stand on the basic grounds required for a
marriage.
 ISSUE NO.2: Does the definition of ‘bride’ under section 5 of the
Hindu Marriage Act include ‘transgender’?

1. Definition of ‘bride’ under Hindu Marriage Act,1955

As, the term referred the dictionary meaning of the word ‘bride’ was presented which
ordinarily means ‘women on her wedding day’. To any special specification of
gender. As, per the Hindu Marriage Act. “The word Bride as in Mentioned section
5(iii) [of the Hindu Marriage Act] literally means as, “ woman who has just married
or is going to be married, the word Transgender finds no place in the Act,” It is to
bring before the Hon’ble Supreme court of Ghindia that ‘Trans genders’ are not
included under the Hindu Marriage Act, “Section 5” which provides the conditions
of a Hindu marriage, refers to “party” as “groom”, and “bride”.

2. No legislation in force in proclaim the same point

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the appellant’s contention of
inclusion of ‘transwoman’ in the definition of bride under Hindu marriage act 1955 is
not a point delineated in legislation. It is a normal understanding that men are
considered to be the bridegroom and women is considered to be the bride. But in the
case of transgender marriage since both partners are of the same gender this
definition can’t be applied. Though the judgment of Madras High Court Arun Kumar
v the Inspector General of the Court stated that, “a person who is born as intersex
but recognizes herself as a woman should be discussed as “bride” under section 5 of
the Hindu marriage act, 1955” cannot be considered as an undisputed point of law.
For this, we can refer to the case Commissioner of Income Tax v M/s Sun
Engineering Works Private Limited, wherein it was held that any interim order
passed even by the Supreme court is limited to that particular case and should not be
used as a precedent for other cases.

Also, the doctrine of separation of powers which is an inherent part of the basic
structure of the constitution of India clearly states that there should be a separation of
powers between various organs of the state. Hence, the law-making power should
rest with the legislature and judiciary focus on the interpretation of the laws.
Following the same principle, the appellants cannot rely on the precedent in the case
of Arun Kumar supra as there is no law explaining the inclusion of transwoman in the
definition of the bride. Hence the appellant’s contention cannot be maintained.
Hence, the marriage between Sarita and Mahima is not valid and does not have any
legal sanction. Also, they do not fall within the definition of the term ‘bride’ under
Section-5 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955.
 ISSUE NO.3: Does the scope of marriage between two transgender
sex tend to other attendant rights such as adoption and
maintenance?

1. Do transgender couples have adoption and maintenance rights under HAMA?

It is to be noted that if a transgender wish to be a parent, its ideas may include

pregnancy with its partner, the birth of another person, or the adoption of a
partner or partner’s children in a past relationship. In India, adoption is governed by
both secular as well as religious laws. In the case of Hindus, it is governed by Hindu
adoption and maintenance Act, 1956. Now, the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance
Act, 1956 lays out a gender bias in adoption. Section 7 and 8 of The Hindu
Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 defines the capacity of a male and female
Hindu respectively to take in Adoption. A married female cannot adopt, not even
with the husband’s consent, unless her husband dies or suffers from any disability
or renounces the world or so. On the other hand, a husband may adopt with the
consent of the wife. In our case, even if the scope of marriage lies between the trans
genders, Rani is a man (biologically) but considers herself to be a woman, and
Sheela on the other hand went through sex-reassignment surgery. Thus, even if we
consider both Mahima and Sarita to be treated as ‘women’, then also they’re not
eligible to adopt as long as they both are married.

Moreover, the adoption regulation act does not allow a single man to adopt a girl
child but a similar restriction does not apply to a woman and she can adopt a male
child. This is different from HAMA where even a single male can also adopt a girl
child provided there is an age gap of twenty years between the two.

Since there is a different set of adoption rules applied in the case of men and women
thus, the applicability of such laws with regards to trans couple will lead to
ambiguity. Although Section 377 of IPC has been decriminalized, still the law debars
LGBTQIA+ community from adopting children altogether. It is to be noted
that Constitutions and statutes usually do not address the adoption rights of LGBT
persons. In case of adoption which doesn’t involve their natural guardians, there is a
higher level of scrutiny where the transsexuals must prove before the court that they
are eligible under section 7 or section 8 of the HAMA. The judicial decisions often
determine whether they can serve as parents either individually or as couples.

2. No adoption rights under juvenile justice act.

The Juvenile Justice Act is a secular legislation. Section 41(6) of this Act is an
enabling provision which allows ‘any person’ to adopt a child. The term ‘person’ is
 not gendered. As a result, both male or female transsexuals can adopt a child under
this Act. Hence, apart from enabling people from all religious communities to adopt a
child, it also allows adoption to happen irrespective of the gender of the parent.
However, the act does not specify the position of law for transgender couples right to
adoption. Section 41(6) only mentions a person right to adopt hence the
definition of person is nowhere clarified. Whether transgender couples come
under the purview of the definition of person under this act is still vague.

3. Trans genders aren’t entitled to maintenance rights.

The Adoptions and Maintenance Act of 1956 dealt specifically with the legal process
of adopting children by a Hindu adult, and with the legal obligations of a Hindu to
provide "maintenance" to various family members including their wife or parents,
and in-laws. The term transgender have no place in HAMA thereby not
granting adoption and maintenance rights to trans genders.

For instance, Section 27(1-A) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 provides the
grounds on which a wife can take divorce but in case of LGBT marriages there is
confusion regarding the term wife. So, reading into the if trans genders do not have a
right to divorce, then right to claim maintenance remains out of question.

Hence, it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that even if the scope of
marriage lies between the trans genders, Sarita is a man (biologically) but considers
herself to be a woman, and Mahima on the other hand went through sex-reassignment
surgery. Thus, even if we consider both Sarita and Mahima to be treated as ‘women’,
then also they’re not eligible to adopt as long as they both are married.

ISSUE NO.4: Whether the appellants are entitled the right to have
a family?

1. Is right to family a fundamental right of the appellants?

Article 21 of the constitution which embodies the right to life and personal liberty is
the most organic and progressive provision in the constitution. A plain reading into
the article 21 gives an insight that privacy is an important facet protected by article
21. However, one cannot extend the scope of the article as per one’s own whims and
fancies as the article is bounded by certain restrictions also. The article does not
explicitly state the right to family as a fundamental right. The Supreme court in the
case of in the Navtej Singh Johar V. UOI has said that “article 21 does not extend
the right to privacy to include a fundamental right in the nature of a right to marry by
two individuals of same gender”. 5The appellants therefore cannot be extended the
 right to adopt or to start a family in the view of this article 21. Moreover, it is not
“permissible” for the court to override the legislative intent with regard to limiting
the legal recognition of marriage to heterosexual couples. The fundamental right
under Article 21 is subject to procedure established by law and the same cannot be
expanded to include the fundamental right for a same sex marriage to be recognized
under the laws of the country which in fact mandate the contrary. Marriage between
two individuals of the same gender is “neither recognized nor accepted in any
uncodified personal law or any codified statutory law” and so does the right to start
or have a family.

2. Denial does not amount to violation of article 14 and 15.

It is submitted before the Hon’ble court that equality under article 14 means that all
persons should be treated equally no matter whether they are poor or rich, male or
female, upper caste or lower caste. This state cannot provide any special privileges to
anyone in the country. However, the court while giving the test of reasonable
classification in the case of Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, described the
jurisprudence of equality before the law and that there is a dependable assumption in
favor of the constitutionality of a rule and the burden is upon him who attacks it to
demonstrate that there has been a reasonable transgression of established
constitutional standards.6 Since article 14 forbids class legislation and not reasonable
classification the distinction between man, woman and transgender does not amount
to irrational classification. The court also upholding the validity of Sec 377 has stated
that it did not create any class and was applicable to both heterosexuals and
homosexuals equally. It criminalized the act and not the person. Also, Article 15
prohibits discrimination only on the ground of gender and not on the ground of
sexual orientation. This is evident from the fact that Article 15(3) provided for
special provisions for women and children, thereby implying that Article 15 covered
only women in its ambit. Thereby the appellants contention of violation of their
rights under articles 14 and 15 does not stand on the grounds of constitutional
morality. There has been no discrimination made against the appellants thereby no
violation of their fundamental rights has occurred.

3. No violation to appellants right under Article 19 and 25.

Article 19 which talks about freedom of speech and expression comes with a set of
reasonable restrictions on such freedom. Freedom to express does not means one can
alter the boundaries of morality and decency. The test of compelling State interest
was satisfied and whether enforcement of morality is a sufficient enough reason to
restrict the fundamental rights. Since, decency or morality are constituted one of the
grounds of reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression under
Article 19(2). Section. The court in the Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra
held that the Courts needed to balance between freedom of speech and public
 decency and morality. Hence, allowing same sex marriages is against the
fundamental principle of morality and decency. It is to be noted that extending
marriage rights to same-sex couples could undercut the conventional purpose of
marriage. Also, monogamous heterosexual marriages contend that same-sex
relationships cannot be considered marriages because marriages, by definition,
necessarily involves the uniting of two members of the opposite sex.

4. Inferior family argument

Another reasoning behind not allowing same-sex couples to adopt is that every child
must be able to know the value of both a mother and a father. The children of same-
sex couple are bound to feel different than other children in the society since they
will not have traditional mother and father couples as their parents. Thus same-sex
couples should be denied the right to adopt as the child should not be raised in an
“inferior family”

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the appellants cannot be granted
any extended rights to family and maintenance as the appellants are not regarded as a
couple or person who under the law have a right to start a family.

PRAYER

In light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly
prayed Before the Honourable Supreme court of GHINDIA to be pleased to:

DECLARE that Mahima and Sarita are not entitled to marriage, adoption and
maintenance as per Hindu laws.
HOLD & ADJUDGE that Trans genders are not covered under the definition of
‘bride’ under Hindu Succession Act,1955 and Mahima and Sarita are not entitled to
start a family together. Also, the transgender marriage is not only against the moral
principles of Hindu religion taking from which customs and usages is Hindu
marriage act,1955 made but also against the order of nature promotion of which may
lead to society imbalance and threat to mankind.

Or the Honourable Supreme court of GHINDIA may pass any other order or decree
as it deems fit in the interest of justice, equity, and good conscience.

And for this act of kindness, the petitioners shall as duty bound ever humbly pray.

Date: 7th February, 2023

Place: GHINDIA

S/d_______________________________

(COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)